skip navigation
search

Search the opinions of the US Supreme Court

Search for:
All decisions
Only decisions since 1991
Only summaries of decisions
Only historic decisions
use and, or, not -- and is default
* acts as wildcard, phrases in "double quotes"

Did you mean Miranda?

Your query miranda returned 24 results.

1000 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Syllabus]
1000 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
1000 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Concur in part, dissent in part]
1000 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Dissent]
1000 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Opinion]
1000 MIRANDA V. ARIZONA
[Dissent]
1000 DICKERSON V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the passage of 18 U.S.C. 3501 Was an unconstitutional attempt by Congress to legislatively overrule the Supreme Court's decision in Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)?"
963 MISSOURI V. SEIBERT
[Syllabus]
Is the rule that a suspect who has once responded to unwarned yet uncoercive questioning is not thereby disabled form waiving his rights and confessing after he has been given the requisite Miranda warnings, Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 318 (1985), abrogated when the initial failure to give the Miranda warnings was intentional?
951 UNITED STATES V. PATANE
[Syllabus]
Does the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine apply to physical-evidence fruit of a Miranda violation?
841 FLORIDA V. POWELL
[Syllabus]
820
[Syllabus]
799 BERGHUIS V. THOMPKINS
[Syllabus]
753 YARBOROUGH V. ALVARADO
[Syllabus]
(1) Whether, in applying the objective test for a "custody" determination under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), a court must consider the age and experience of a person if he or she is a juvenile? (2) Whether a state court adjudication can be deemed an "objectively unreasonable" application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254(d), because it declines to "extend" the rule of a Supreme Court precedent to a new context.
699 MARYLAND V. SHATZER
[Syllabus]
665
[Syllabus]
665 THOMPSON V. KEOHANE, WARDEN, ET AL., 516 U.S. 99 (1996)..
[Syllabus]
629 J. D. B. V. NORTH CAROLINA
[Syllabus]
589
[Syllabus]
589 PENNSYLVANIA V. MUNIZ, 496 U.S. 582 (1990)
[Syllabus]
486 FELLERS V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
I. Did the Court of Appeals err when they concluded that Petitioner's Sixth Amendment right to counsel under Massih v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), was not violated because Petitioner was not interrogated by Government agents; when the proper standard under Supreme Court precedent, is whether the Government agents deliberately elicited information from Petitioner? 2. Should the second statements- preceded by Miranda warnings- have been suppressed as fruits of the illegal posts indictment interview without the presence of counsel, under this Court;s decisions in Nix v. Williams, 467 U.S. 431 (1984), and Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 (1975)?
486 CORLEY V. UNITED STATES
[Syllabus]
486 MONTEJO V. LOUISIANA
[Syllabus]
419 SANCHEZ-LLAMAS V. OREGON
[Syllabus]
419
[Syllabus]
419
[Syllabus]
419 TEXAS V. COBB
[Syllabus]
Because the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is "offense specific," it does not necessarily extend to crimes that are "factually related" to those that have actually been charged.
331 CHAVEZ V. MARTINEZ
[Syllabus]
1. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel Correctly characterized the Supreme Court's Fifth Amendment discussion in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990), as non-binding dicta and thereby ignored its holding favorable to petitioner. 2. Whether a violation of the Fifth Amendment, potentially resulting in an award of civil damages, occurs at the time of the purported coercive the constitutionally violative statement in a criminal proceeding. 3. Whether the Ninth Circuit panel correctly held that the conduct of this investigating officer was so offensive as to deny him qualified immunity.
209 FERGUSON V. CHARLESTON
[Syllabus]
A state hospital's performance of drug tests to obtain evidence of maternity patients' cocaine use for law enforcement purposes is an unreasonable search if the patients have not consented to the procedure; the interest in using the threat of criminal sanctions to deter such use cannot justify a departure from the general rule that an official nonconsensual search is unconstitutional if not authorized by a valid warrant.
209
[Syllabus]
209 PORTUONDO V. AGARD
[Syllabus]
Whether the Second Circuit Court of Appeals erred in extending this Court's decision in Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 509 (1965)-- which prohibited a prosecutor's comment on a defendant's right to remain silent-- to a prosecutor's comment on a testifying defendant's presence in the courtroom during the testimony of other witnesses?